GoalWatch vs Colchester

[Bergen Blade]

1st goal:

Harriott finds Sordell in a central position 30 yards out. Edgar and Collins can't decide who's going to close him down (1st defender) and who's going to drop back (2nd defender). This means neither gets close enough to challenge him and neither drops deeper. Which means that

• Sordell can turn and pick a clever pass
• there's space behind our defence to run into

Sordell plays Moncur through and he scores.



What we should have done:

Collins and Edgar must establish who's going to be first and second defender.

As Collins is originally closest to Sordell as he receives the ball I think he should have got closer to him, while Edgar dropped back. Collins could have prevented Sordell to turn, and if that failed, Edgar could have swept up the through ball. TWO ways of rescuing the situation, even before discussing if Basham or Baxter should have tracked the runner.



2nd goal:

McEveley takes a throw in not far from the corner flag. Garvan picks up the dropping ball, plays a 1-2 with Sordell. He then plays Moncur through. Moncur beats Howard again.

It is not offside. McEveley hasn't had time to catch up with the rest of the players, as shown here:



There are a few things that goes wrong for us:

• Woolford doesn't win the original flick
• Garvan loses Basham with the clever headed 1-2
• Collins can't win the ball from Sordell

Then this becomes the situation:



Again the man on the ball is poorly closed down. He can pick a pass. It is vital that we do not leave space behind our defence. But what happens?



Edgar also breaks out of the defensive line to close down Garvan. This means there are nobody to sweep up the through ball.

What we should have done:

Edgar, knowing that McEveley is preventing an offside, and having seen Collins already breaking out to challenge Sordell, should have remained in his deep position, or dropped a bit deeper. This could have enabled him to intercept the pass, or challenge Moncur.



3rd goal:

Colchester's move start with a throw in in their own half. At this stage we are going for the win and leave more players forward.



There are a few random things happening, but it ends with Sordell running on the ball. We only have two players back, Collins and McEveley. Sordell decides to shoot from long range and it takes a lucky deflection which beats Howard.

What we should have done:

To avoid conceding we should have got more players back. But, as said, at that stage we were going for the win.

 

[DronnieBlade]

Good obs as always Bergs.

Confirms my thinking in real time as on the night, I did think Collo was most at fault as both goals came through the left CD "slot". Accept McEverley could also take a lot of the blame for the 2nd for not pushing up in line with the defensive line.

3rd was just plain lucky !!!!!

UTB

 

[DronnieBlade]

Also that both our penalty awards were incredibly generous !!

UTB

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

1st goal:

Harriott finds Sordell in a central position 30 yards out. Edgar and Collins can't decide who's going to close him down (1st defender) and who's going to drop back (2nd defender). This means neither gets close enough to challenge him and neither drops deeper. Which means that

• Sordell can turn and pick a clever pass
• there's space behind our defence to run into

Sordell plays Moncur through and he scores.


View attachment 13375
What we should have done:

Collins and Edgar must establish who's going to be first and second defender.

As Collins is originally closest to Sordell as he receives the ball I think he should have got closer to him, while Edgar dropped back. Collins could have prevented Sordell to turn, and if that failed, Edgar could have swept up the through ball. TWO ways of rescuing the situation, even before discussing if Basham or Baxter should have tracked the runner.



2nd goal:

McEveley takes a throw in not far from the corner flag. Garvan picks up the dropping ball, plays a 1-2 with Sordell. He then plays Moncur through. Moncur beats Howard again.

It is not offside. McEveley hasn't had time to catch up with the rest of the players, as shown here:

View attachment 13377

There are a few things that goes wrong for us:

• Woolford doesn't win the original flick
• Garvan loses Basham with the clever headed 1-2
• Collins can't win the ball from Sordell

Then this becomes the situation:

View attachment 13379

Again the man on the ball is poorly closed down. He can pick a pass. It is vital that we do not leave space behind our defence. But what happens?

View attachment 13380

Edgar also breaks out of the defensive line to close down Garvan. This means there are nobody to sweep up the through ball.

What we should have done:

Edgar, knowing that McEveley is preventing an offside, and having seen Collins already breaking out to challenge Sordell, should have remained in his deep position, or dropped a bit deeper. This could have enabled him to intercept the pass, or challenge Moncur.



3rd goal:

Colchester's move start with a throw in in their own half. At this stage we are going for the win and leave more players forward.

View attachment 13381

There are a few random things happening, but it ends with Sordell running on the ball. We only have two players back, Collins and McEveley. Sordell decides to shoot from long range and it takes a lucky deflection which beats Howard.

What we should have done:

To avoid conceding we should have got more players back. But, as said, at that stage we were going for the win.

Thanks. As always. It's a real education.

I thought we improved significantly towards the end of the first half and most of the second half.

How do you account for that? In your opinion was it tactical, physical, both/neither?

 

[Punk Blade]

For the third Collins backed off FAR too much.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Also that both our penalty awards were incredibly generous !!

UTB

From the Family Stand I thought McEveley could have been given two penalties in that one incident: he seemed to get a nudge but stayed on his feet, and then their defender made sure by pushing him over.

If the issue with the second is inside/outside the box, that has been discussed elsewhere and apparently the Law is to be interpreted such that if the foul starts outside then continues inside, it's a penalty. (Fwiw this makes a lot of sense to me; if nothing else it's a kind of advantage - play on and see if he fouls you in the box.)

 

[Ricky]

Worth adding that it was a stupid throw in from McEveley in the first place. As with most things he does, it was an unnecessary risk. He threw it into an area where it would drop to an opponent in a dangerous position if our man missed the ball, which he did.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Worth adding that it was a stupid throw in from McEveley in the first place. As with most things he does, it was an unnecessary risk. He threw it into an area where it would drop to an opponent in a dangerous position if our man missed the ball, which he did.

In my opinion that wasn't worth adding at all.

 

[bartman]

Worth adding that it was a stupid throw in from McEveley in the first place. As with most things he does, it was an unnecessary risk. He threw it into an area where it would drop to an opponent in a dangerous position if our man missed the ball, which he did.

Interesting that you don't balance the argument with the positive side to McEverley's game yesterday ( and there was more positive than negative). Any reason for that ?

 

[Sothall_Blade]

From the Family Stand I thought McEveley could have been given two penalties in that one incident: he seemed to get a nudge but stayed on his feet, and then their defender made sure by pushing him over.

If the issue with the second is inside/outside the box, that has been discussed elsewhere and apparently the Law is to be interpreted such that if the foul starts outside then continues inside, it's a penalty. (Fwiw this makes a lot of sense to me; if nothing else it's a kind of advantage - play on and see if he fouls you in the box.)

I'm not so sure that the foul does continue inside the box to be honest.
Their bloke gives Sharp one massive shove outside and they're both airborne by the time they're in the box.
Still, the officials only get one look at it and they do right to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking side

For their second, McCeveley had six seconds to sprint out to the 18 yard box. Should be long enough if he really did sprint, you would think?

 

[JohnDenver]

For their second, McCeveley had six seconds to sprint out to the 18 yard box. Should be long enough if he really did sprint, you would think?

It was the sort of goal you see in parks. I mean that genuinely, not as an easy insult.

Poor throw. Crap organisation (get Sammon back to win the header). Zero pressure on the ball. Awful tracking. Docile defending. And to top it all, McEverley is half asleep throughout.

In parks football, the fitter, more intense team prevail this way. In professional football....

 

[Ricky]

Interesting that you don't balance the argument with the positive side to McEverley's game yesterday ( and there was more positive than negative). Any reason for that ?

Because I'm commenting on that one individual incident and not the rest of his performance? I wouldn't say there was more positive than negative though. At least he won a penalty.

WHF, if you don't feel it was worth adding OK, but I don't see what there is to argue with. He threw it into a central position near our own box with nobody but opponents behind the team mate he was aiming at, even if he got his head on it they would've probably got to it first. In addition to that he didn't bother to get his arse back in line with the other defenders.

 

[Guesty]

For the third Collins backed off FAR too much.

No, didn't you hear from the weekend? Shots from distance are impossible to defend and anyway no-one can possibly predict that someone from outside the area might be thinking of having a pop.

 

[Revolution]

The main thing that struck me about the first two goals is that they were scored after incisive passing moves, executed at speed.

Are we capable of doing the same?

 

[RMBlade]

I didnt make it to the game Tuesday so i have only seen the highlights.

With regards to the first goal, Edgar should be closing for me and Collins dropping deeper so he can see the oncoming run. Failing that i think McEverly should be stepping a yard or two over to cover Collins who was IMO out of position (The replay was really zoomed and couldn't see McEverly or the man he was potentially marking so I may be wrong) I am not pinning it on McEverly because primarily it was Collins' error but i think McEverly could have done more.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Thanks. As always. It's a real education.

I thought we improved significantly towards the end of the first half and most of the second half.

How do you account for that? In your opinion was it tactical, physical, both/neither?

Not sure, but with an unexpected scoreline of 2-0 to the away side, it was only to be expected that we gradually took over, while they sat back/defended a bit more.

Watching it back, it wasn't quite as bad as I feared. From reports on here you sometimes get the impression that every single attempted pass lead to something horrible. Like most of last season we lacked rhythm though and couldn't get our passing going. Great teams have threats from all over, left, right, central, good partnerships with players complementing eachother, players coming forward in waves to support, etc. From an attacking perspective it was hard for me to see what was supposed to be our strength. In the end we produced some chances, often from long balls over the top, but in general it was a struggle.

 

[Lane Ender]

The main thing that struck me about the first two goals is that they were scored after incisive passing moves, executed at speed.

Are we capable of doing the same?

True but it was schoolboy defending .

 

[Bergen Blade]

For the third Collins backed off FAR too much.

Maybe, but being much slower than Sordell he couldn't just rush in either.

 

[sheffielder]

When you have two players who aren't central midfielders playing there, teams play through you.

 

[The Bohemian]

1st goal:

Harriott finds Sordell in a central position 30 yards out. Edgar and Collins can't decide who's going to close him down (1st defender) and who's going to drop back (2nd defender). This means neither gets close enough to challenge him and neither drops deeper. Which means that

• Sordell can turn and pick a clever pass
• there's space behind our defence to run into

Sordell plays Moncur through and he scores.


View attachment 13375
What we should have done:

Collins and Edgar must establish who's going to be first and second defender.

As Collins is originally closest to Sordell as he receives the ball I think he should have got closer to him, while Edgar dropped back. Collins could have prevented Sordell to turn, and if that failed, Edgar could have swept up the through ball. TWO ways of rescuing the situation, even before discussing if Basham or Baxter should have tracked the runner.



2nd goal:

McEveley takes a throw in not far from the corner flag. Garvan picks up the dropping ball, plays a 1-2 with Sordell. He then plays Moncur through. Moncur beats Howard again.

It is not offside. McEveley hasn't had time to catch up with the rest of the players, as shown here:

View attachment 13377

There are a few things that goes wrong for us:

• Woolford doesn't win the original flick
• Garvan loses Basham with the clever headed 1-2
• Collins can't win the ball from Sordell

Then this becomes the situation:

View attachment 13379

Again the man on the ball is poorly closed down. He can pick a pass. It is vital that we do not leave space behind our defence. But what happens?

View attachment 13380

Edgar also breaks out of the defensive line to close down Garvan. This means there are nobody to sweep up the through ball.

What we should have done:

Edgar, knowing that McEveley is preventing an offside, and having seen Collins already breaking out to challenge Sordell, should have remained in his deep position, or dropped a bit deeper. This could have enabled him to intercept the pass, or challenge Moncur.



3rd goal:

Colchester's move start with a throw in in their own half. At this stage we are going for the win and leave more players forward.

View attachment 13381

There are a few random things happening, but it ends with Sordell running on the ball. We only have two players back, Collins and McEveley. Sordell decides to shoot from long range and it takes a lucky deflection which beats Howard.

What we should have done:

To avoid conceding we should have got more players back. But, as said, at that stage we were going for the win.

Interesting summary and some valid points made. The bigger issue for me is just how defensively vulnerable we've looked in two games against bog standard third division teams. This highlights the following problems:

1. Central defence remains a problem. Whilst Edgar has improved things, to my eyes he looks a slightly more accomplished version of Collins but still way short of what we had with Maguire. On Tuesday he was positionally poor on several occasions, including once where he had to drag a Colchester player back on the edge of the box having been caught wrong side. This is compounded by him lacking the yard of pace that could get him out of trouble - he's quicker than Collins but still not 'quick'. You also highlight his lack of understanding with Collins, which will only improve with time but for now is a big problem.

Solution: Sign Burn or, preferably, move Basham alongside Edgar. When he was deployed at centre half last season I thought he was outstanding. He offers the extra pace currently lacked and thrived on the extra time on the ball he was allowed at the back.

2. We need a holding midfield player. Despite his shortcomings, I was in the Doyle appreciation camp for his defensively qualities and the cover he gave to the centre of our defence. We have no ready made replacement and this played a big part in Tuesday's defeat. Basham's work rate is admirable but I'm not sure what role he fulfils in midfield. He seems more comfortable running beyond the opposition defence than sitting deep, yet when he receives the ball further forward, he doesn't know what to do with it. He doesn't play with his head up and he's not comfortable enough on the ball to cope with being pressured deep in his own half.

Baxter is comfortable and confident on the ball but just cannot defend. I rate Baxter but I don't see a role for him in the middle of a 4-4-2.

Solution: Sign Sam Morsy! This boy has impressed me every time I've seen him and looks to have all the attributes required of a holding midfielder: strong, aggressive, mobile, comfortable on the ball and chips in with the odd goal. Hammond may be an alternative solution but has a lot more mileage on his clock. Morsy is 8 years younger and looks capable of delivering at a higher level.


Fix these two issues, and with Brayford, Harris and Done to return, the squad has enough to finish in the top two.

 

[AlienBlade]

Worth adding that it was a stupid throw in from McEveley in the first place. As with most things he does, it was an unnecessary risk. He threw it into an area where it would drop to an opponent in a dangerous position if our man missed the ball, which he did.

where else would you have like him to thrown in that wasnt "dangerous"? there was three options...

Baxter square... who was also marked... (suicidal to play that ball)
Woolford up the line but slightly infield (chosen method and Woolford should have done better)
Sammons who was up the line at a further distance with 2 men on him? thus meaning if the ball dropped short or too long they would have done the exact same as if passing to Woolford and him cocking up...

the only mistake was not getting out quick enough... but considering how far he was back (corner flag) he had only 4 seconds (23sec to 27sec when the ball is played not 6 as Southall states) to get onside (yes probabaly lenough... but the defence shouldnt be letting that ball get played and woolford should have easily won it.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Worth adding that it was a stupid throw in from McEveley in the first place. As with most things he does, it was an unnecessary risk. He threw it into an area where it would drop to an opponent in a dangerous position if our man missed the ball, which he did.

Here's another angle, when McEveley makes his mind up on where to throw the ball.

I think he realises he can't reach Sammon, and sees Woolford, marked by a much smaller player, has some space infield. So the plan was probably a Woolford flick to Sammon. I'd imagine we practice routines for us to get the ball upfield from such situations, and this could be one. Probably scrapped now though!

 

[Slim Man]

Worth adding that it was a stupid throw in from McEveley in the first place. As with most things he does, it was an unnecessary risk. He threw it into an area where it would drop to an opponent in a dangerous position if our man missed the ball, which he did.

In my opinion that wasn't worth adding at all.

In fairness it was. It was a crap throw in, put us in danger, with how we were playing and how the fans were getting on the players back it would have just been so much better to get the ball to an unmarked man and keep it. Keep possession and gain a foothold in the game.

For me, McEveley recovered from his awful first half with a decent showing in the second, good attacking play but can't cross and leaves a lot to be desired defensively.
If we're intent on shoehorning him into the team and for whatever reason waiting a few weeks to sign Hammond (stupid stupid decision, almost like they dont want to spend money) why not try him in defensive midfield? He has a bit of bite, he's not that bad in possession and some of his strengths could be utilized in midfield, albeit deep midfield. For one he could do much less damage by making his per-game mistake there than in defence.

I'd much rather get him out the team altogether, that's no secret, but if we're intent on keeping him in I'd try him there, especially against Bradford. They're going to bully us, and if we go with the same setup we'll let them. Need someone who can put a foot in in the middle of the park to help win the midfield battle.

 

[Bergen Blade]

I didnt make it to the game Tuesday so i have only seen the highlights.

With regards to the first goal, Edgar should be closing for me and Collins dropping deeper so he can see the oncoming run. Failing that i think McEverly should be stepping a yard or two over to cover Collins who was IMO out of position (The replay was really zoomed and couldn't see McEverly or the man he was potentially marking so I may be wrong) I am not pinning it on McEverly because primarily it was Collins' error but i think McEverly could have done more.

The main thing is that they decide who does what. The way they did it both effectively did nothing. As Collins was originally with Sordell I personally thought it would be natural that he kept track of him, while Edgar ran back to cover:

 

[Ricky]

There's a reason the conventional thing to do with throw ins in that position is to go straight down the line, especially when you're aiming for a team mate's head. It's less risky.

But don't get me wrong, he wasn't the main culprit there, it was piss poor from both the centre halves and centre midfielders.

 

[RMBlade]

Fair point Bergen. I guess as long as they are both on the same page (which will hopefully come with more playing time) it doesn't matter too much who closes.

On the hand if Collins and Edgar weren't ball watching maybe one of them could have seen the run start to develop and react to it before hes ran past them both with the ball.

 

[Bergen Blade]

The main thing that struck me about the first two goals is that they were scored after incisive passing moves, executed at speed.

Fully agree. There are probably more defensive slip ups during games than we realise, but for a goal to happen it often must coincide with opposition players doing something very well.

 

[sitwell]

May be controversial but if Doyle had been playing we might not have concede any of them , the first and 3rd for certain ,he did a lot of covering for the back four that many didn't notice because they were too busy looking at his shortcomings. We very rarely conceded more than 2 goals in a game when he played.

 

[RMBlade]

I think Basham could probably do that job better Doyle and push Baxer into more of an attacking midfield role, but for whatever reason Adkins seems to only want to a play a flat 4-4-2

 

[1danewhitehouse]

What we should have done:

Edgar, knowing that McEveley is preventing an offside, and having seen Collins already breaking out to challenge Sordell, should have remained in his deep position, or dropped a bit deeper. This could have enabled him to intercept the pass, or challenge Moncur.

]

I like your analysis Bergen but I disagree with the above statement. If Edgar doesn’t close the ball down, they get a free shot from 20-25 yards and as we’ve seen on Saturday, players get crucified for letting that happen. For me, the fault is more with Woolford, Basham and McEveley (chronological order). Woolford loses the first ball, Basham is bypassed too easily (but at least he tries to get back to his man unlike Baxter on the first) and I’d have to watch it properly from other angles but I think maybe McEveley is too slow getting out and back into the defensive line after the throw thus playing Moncur onside. By the time those 3 had committed those acts, Edgar was in a position where he had to make a decision that would either leave space behind or leave the man a free sight of goal.

The first goal, I think, depending on the nature of the instructions the players received, I would hold Collins or Baxter (or a combination of the 2) responsible. The goal was scored in Collins’ zone but by the man Baxter had been “marking” (I use that term loosely) in the build up. Depending on the responsibilities allocated, Collins should have dropped off as Sordell was in Edgar’s zone and kept an eye out for a runner into his zone (Moncur) or Baxter should have continued to track his runner (Moncur) instead of simply giving up.

For the 3rd goal, you could argue a midfielder should be chasing back and that Edgar should be back there but as you say, we were trying to win the game and we still Had Collins and McEveley back. It’s another shot from distance and they get a huge slice of luck for that one. If they were the only goals we were conceding, I could live with that.